Summary: the Council failed to respond to Mr X’s requests for a report following an officer’s inspection of housing conditions and a mice infestation in his flat. That was fault but it did not cause any injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a tenant in private rented accommodation. He complains that the Council did not respond to his request for a copy of the Housing Health & Safety Rating System assessment report following an officer’s inspection of his flat in April 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered all the information he sent me. I considered the Council’s comments and records held by the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team and Residential Licensing team.
5. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X lives with his wife and their two young children in a self-contained flat in a modern purpose-built block.
7. Mr X and his family moved to the flat in November 2017. Shortly after moving in, Mr X started to complain to his landlord about damp and mould and a mice infestation in his flat. He also raised concerns with the property management company which manages the common parts and exterior of the block about a rat infestation and fire safety matters.
8. Mr X was not satisfied with the response so he then complained to the Council’s Private Sector Housing Enforcement team. The Ombudsman has investigated a separate complaint from Mr X about the Council’s handling of these matters.

The relevant law and guidance

9. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep a property in good repair. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to inspect properties and to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. Where a council identifies a Category 1 hazard, it must serve a notice on the landlord.
10. The HHSRS assesses 29 categories of housing hazard. A hazard is defined as any risk of harm to an occupier arising from a deficiency. Damp and mould growth, and pests such as rats or mice, are recognised hazards. Each hazard has a weighting which will help determine whether the property is rated as having category 1 (serious) or category 2 (other).
11. Officers must give the owners and occupiers at least 24 hours’ notice of their intention to inspect a property to carry out a HHSRS assessment.
12. Operating guidance issued by central government says the inspection must be thorough and comprehensive and the findings must be accurately recorded and stored.

Key events

13. Council officers in the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team have inspected Mr X’s flat on two occasions. Officers in the Residential Licensing team carried out a third inspection after Mr X’s landlord was granted a licence.
14. Before Mr X contacted the Council, his landlord had arranged for a pest contractor to visit the flat twice in January 2018 to carry out treatment for a mice infestation.

The first inspection

15. In April 2018 Mr X contacted the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team to report his concerns about the following matters:
• Refuse and waste food outside the block which encouraged foxes and rats;
• Rats inside the walls of the flats;
• Dead mice and mice droppings inside his flat;

Mr X gave details of the property management company.

16. On 18 April 2018 Officer A, a Technical Officer, visited to inspect the exterior and common parts of the block. He also went into Mr X’s flat and found evidence of rodent droppings in the kitchen and bathroom. He initially contacted the property management company who explained they were not Mr X’s landlord. They were responsible for pest control in the common parts and external areas. They knew there were rats outside the block and had appointed contractors to implement a pest control programme.
17. Following contact from Officer A, Mr X’s landlord arranged for a pest control company to inspect and treat the flat on 29 May. Mr X did not consent to the pest control contractors making a follow-up visit on 7 June because he had a medical appointment.
18. I have seen some emails the officer sent following the April 2018 inspection but there no detailed inspection records. In response to Mr X’s later complaint about the technical officer, the manager said he visited to investigate the complaint about rodents in the bin store and common parts of the block. Mr X invited him into his flat. The technical officer found no battery in the smoke alarm and Mr X said he had removed it. The technical officer also noted evidence of a rodent infestation in the flat (he did not specify whether this was mice or rats). He had followed this up by asking Mr X’s landlord to arrange for a pest control contractor to inspect and treat the flat.
19. The manager says the technical officer did not see any evidence of disrepair in the flat. He did not complete a full HHSRS assessment because the landlord had not been given prior notice of the inspection. He says Mr X agreed to replace the battery in the smoke alarm.
20. Mr X sent an email to the technical officer in early June 2018 asking for a copy of the officer’s report. He referred to the requirements in the HHSRS. He then sent further emails to other officers between October and November 2018 repeating his request for a copy of the report. He contacted the Ombudsman in mid-January 2019 to complain that he had not received any response.
21. During our investigation, we obtained the Private Sector Housing Enforcement team’s inspection reports and sent them to Mr X.

Analysis

22. Mr X sent emails to Officer A, and other officers, between June and November 2018 asking to see the HHSRS assessment report for the inspection on 18 April 2018. Due to the volume of Mr X’s email correspondence with officers on various housing matters, it seems this request was overlooked.
23. Officers should have explained to Mr X that Officer A had not carried out a HHSRS assessment in April 2018 so there was no HHSRS report available. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman because he felt the Council had simply ignored his requests.
24. Mr X often raised multiple issues within a single email. He sent emails to several Council officers. Officers sometimes found it difficult to manage contact with Mr X because of the frequency of his emails. Mr X believes officers had deliberately ignored his request and he was frustrated by their failure to reply.
25. The failure to respond to Mr X was fault. However, I do not consider it caused any significant injustice. The Council had not undertaken a HHSRS assessment in April 2018 so it could not provide Mr X with such a report. Later inspections in February and April 2019 under the HHSRS found no evidence of Category 1 hazards in the flat or any significant defects that justified a HHSRS rating. Mr X now has a copy of these inspection reports.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault because it did not reply to Mr X’s requests for a copy of the officer’s report. But the Council could not have sent Mr X a HHSRS report in April 2018 because Officer A had not undertaken this assessment. Mr X now has a copy of the later inspection reports so there is no injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman